From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
Date: | 2010-09-03 02:08:08 |
Message-ID: | 10392.1283479688@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> + * XXX: Is it safe to elog(ERROR) in a signal handler?
>>
>> No, it isn't.
> We should use elog(FATAL) or check proc_exit_inprogress, instead?
elog(FATAL) is *certainly* not a better idea. I think there's really
nothing that can be done, you just have to silently ignore the error.
BTW, if we retry, there had probably better be a limit on how many times
to retry ...
> + if (errno != EAGAIN && errno != EWOULDBLOCK)
> + {
> + /*
> + * XXX: Is it safe to elog(ERROR) in a signal handler?
> + */
> + elog(ERROR, "write() on self-pipe failed: %m");
> + }
> + if (errno == EINTR)
> + goto retry;
> "errno == EINTR)" seems to be never checked.
Another issue with coding like that is that it supposes elog() won't
change errno.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Max Bowsher | 2010-09-03 02:34:47 | Re: git: uh-oh |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-09-03 02:02:25 | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |